Posted by Idea Person on September 12, 2000 at 17:35:42:
In Reply to: [IDEA] Rangers posted by Lil' Idea on September 12, 2000 at 16:53:31:
I understand the arguements but I've always seen hardiness as a ranger's prime attribute (ie CON). STR is important too but CON seems the biggie in my view of rangers. I also understand your points about how hard rangers are to kill. Very true, but any class is hard to kill if played properly. I guess my point is that rangers are damn good in forest (where then can camo or chameo if sylvan) but terrible elswhere. The problem then is that places to camo are not overly abundant in Thera, meaning that rangers are greatly limited in where the can reasonalby travel. That was one point. The other is the xp penalty. I was just trying to start a discussion on its justification. I just don't see how a forest warrior and a warrior differ when one factors in a rangers limitations. Note, if CON was the major stat this xp penalty would be justified, esp. for h-elf and humans. But I just don't think that a total lack of speicalization, a lack of fighting tactics, more limited choice of weapons is compenasted by camo, ambush, the abilty to survive in the wilds (plus the other few utility skills a ranger gets). Now if every second area was a ranger's paradise (like FON), then fine. But I can recall several difficultes trying to rank my ranger after 27 or so. Ther are few choices, a warrior (my comparsion benchmark) really doens't have this issue. In any event, that's what I was tihnking which led to the thing about giving them another wilderness only skill... Thanks for your feedback.